The Problem of One-Member Sentences in Uzbek and English

Hilola Zubaydullayeva; Asher Navarro

doi:10.1997/2mqryh90

Authors

Hilola Zubaydullayeva Teacher of the Department of English Philology of the Samarkand State Institute of Foreign Languages Uzbekistan Author
Asher Navarro Dr., Professor, Editor-in-Chief of JA Inkwell Publishing House, Arizona, USA Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1997/2mqryh90

Keywords:

coherent sentence, one-component structures, approach, verbal form

Abstract

This article addresses issues of one-member sentences in Uzbek and modern English. The notion of incomplete sentences has been of great importance for linguists from different parts of the world. There were no special works devoted to incomplete sentences. The main significant research of this matter were the thesis of A.N.Nazarov and the work of A. A. Shakhmatov, and it is concluded that it is impossible to give a satisfactory definition of incomplete sentences based on a grammatical structure, as well as the impossibility of putting forward clear criteria for dividing sentences into complete and incomplete. It is due to the fact that the definition of incompleteness for a long time was based not on structural-grammatical, but on semantic features. However, many questions of the theory of one-member sentences still remain unresolved including their structure and peculiarities, also the relationship between various linguistic factors have not been completely clarified.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Admoni V.G. Completeness of construction as a phenomenon of syntactic form. Voprosy yazykoznania, №1, 1958. – P.111-117

Barsova O.M. Two-part verbal sentences in English. NDVSh FN, 1962.

Burieva U.A. “Characteristic features of incomplete sentences”. Theoritical and applied sciences Volume:80/Issue:12/December/2019, – P.557-560.

Burieva U.A. “Incomplete syntactic constructions in cognitive-discoursive information and isofunctional aspects”. IJRD Volume:5/Issue:4/April 2020, – P.344.

Chomsky N. Syntactic structures. New In Linguistics, vol. 2, -M., 1962.

Dudyk P.S. Incomplete and elliptic sentences in the modern Ukrainian language. abstract of cand...diss. -Kiev, 1954.

Grammar of the Russian language. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. -M., 1954.

Harris Z. Joint occurrence and transformation in the linguistic structure. “New in Linguistics”, vol. 2, -M., 1962;

Kolshansky G.V. On the nature of the context. -NY. 1959.

Fries Ch. The structure of English. -N.Y., 1952.

Fitialova S.Ya. Problems in structural linguistics. –M., 1962. p.108.

Lomteva T.P. Fundamentals of the syntax of the modern Russian language. Uchpedgiz, 1958.

Nazarov A.N. Incomplete proposals, conditions for their use and their structure. -Penza, 1950.

Popova I.A. Incomplete sentences in modern Russian. Proceedings of the Institute of Linguistics, vol. 2, -M., 1953.

Peshkovsky A.M. Ruskiy sintaksis v nauchnom osveshenii. –M. Uchpedgiz. 1956. – 511p. [16] Shvedova N.Y. Typology of monolithic sentences based on nature and paradigms/Problems of Modern Philology. -M., 1965.

Sampson G. The Concise Cambridge History of English Literature. Cambridge University Press. –Cambridge. 2002

Sadullaeva N.A., Mamatova F.B. Classification of euphemism and its formation in the Uzbek language. Journal of critical reviews. Vol 7, Issue 4. (Scopus) March 23, 2020. Malaysia. ISSN 2394-5125 http://www.jcreview.com/fulltext/197- 1584972123.pdf/1586606700